Mammut, a leading brand for mountaineering equipment and outdoor clothing, joined Fair Wear Foundation in 2008.
Brand Performance Check 2017
Mammut has shown advanced results on performance indicators and has made exceptional progress. It reaches a monitoring percentage of 92%, which meets the required monitoring threshold after three years of FWF membership. With a score of 75, Mammut is placed in the ‘Leader’ category.
Mammut has particularly good systems in place to monitor suppliers, evaluate their performance and assess country risks. In resolving a recurrent complaint at one of its Chinese suppliers related to excessive overtime, it conducted a thorough analysis. Mammut learned that the excessive overtime was not directly caused by its production planning, although it did place production orders during peak season. The brand continues to offer detailed forecasts in advance, but also requires the factory to confirm capacity bookings based on a maximum of 60 hours per week. The brand also agreed with the factory to supply the standard minute per style to Mammut so that it can calculate the needed capacity more accurately.
In 2016, Mammut continued its strategy to transfer production from China to Vietnam. The main reasons to relocate production were based on quality, innovation and prices. Chinese production locations open up factories in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar, actively promoting the shift of production to these countries. Mammut’s production was also placed at production locations in Bangladesh and Myanmar, although this accounted for a very small percentage of its total FOB. The shift of suppliers means that Mammut is currently in a transition period where it is decreasing production at Chinese suppliers and starting new relationships with others.
Furthermore, Mammut’s Japanese subsidiary is steadily growing. It has added new suppliers to Mammut’s overall supplier list. In six years’ time, the total number of suppliers grew from 31 to more than 50. This poses challenges in monitoring suppliers and actively following up on audit results.
Despite the fact that Mammut’s purchasing department has to approve the placement of production at new suppliers by the Japanese subsidiary, there is still a difference between the human rights due diligence performed by Mammut and its subsidiary. FWF recommends Mammut to bring the subsidiary in line with its human rights due diligence.
FWF strongly recommends Mammut to develop a sourcing strategy focused on the relocation of production. The strategy should consider the steps the brand will take to ensure a responsible exit. The strategy should also take workers’ voice and interest into account. Furthermore, it should include consolidation of its supplier base, building long-term relationships and increasing leverage at new suppliers.
Score: 75 Percentage under monitoring: 92% Category: Leader